Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proposition 8 and DOMA Predictions

jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:07:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does anyone have any predictions about how the Supreme Court will rule on Prop. 8 and DOMA?

If so, why do you believe they will rule that way?
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:12:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
No because intrade is dead :(

WTF? what does Intrade have to do with prop 8 or DOMA? did I miss something?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:23:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:07:31 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
Does anyone have any predictions about how the Supreme Court will rule on Prop. 8 and DOMA?

If so, why do you believe they will rule that way?

I will say this, the constitution makes it very clear that there is a separation of church and state. now with this in mind, gay marriage is a religious issue, there is no other excuse, and as such, laws banning such things, much like laws banning a person based on their color or sex is unconstitutional, I would think that the SCOTUS will vote against prop 8 and DOMA.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:25:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:20:25 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
No because intrade is dead :(

WTF? what does Intrade have to do with prop 8 or DOMA? did I miss something?

apparently the development of search engines.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:25:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.

what important question, is gay marriage morally right? welcome to america, were people can use hate speech freely under the 1st amendment (WBC perfect example)

the question of "is it right or wrong" is still a religious question, should not be banned by the government, or made illegal just on those grounds...
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:25:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:20:25 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
No because intrade is dead :(

WTF? what does Intrade have to do with prop 8 or DOMA? did I miss something?

apparently the development of search engines.

LMAO I know right?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's hard to see a case for DOMA given the full faith and credit clause so I'm betting it'll be struck down. As for prop 8 I'm guessing it will also be overturned but I'm far less certain about that one, and very unsure of the implications.

I wish intrade was still around :(
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
SCOTUS is beyond prediction. We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction. We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:59:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction. We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

*in the ACA case
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I concur with Ike here. While I would definitely support striking down DOMA (Prop 8 I'm more murky on), the Obamacare fiasco makes me skeptical of any predicative power.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

If SCOTUS was going to do that, why would they have even bothered to grant ceri, rather than just ignore because the issue wasn't ripe?

Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.

I can't see repealing prop 8 without striking down DOMA... I suppose it's possible, but not -I think- likely.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction.

That is just not true. There is an entire field of political science which does more or less precisely that (studying judicial politics and judicialization trends).

We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

LOL That is just not true either (that "we all" -whoever "we" refers to in this case is tbd- thought SCOTUS would strike down obamacare). Very few well informed judicial scholars actually believed it was unconstitutional. Only the dimwitted pundits actually believed what you are saying -although most were surprised by Robert's reasoning.

We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Nope.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

Roberts would have started a war with the White House, which would have both undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch, while fundamentally thumbing his nose at the role of checks and balances. What Robert's did, though, was more clever than most give him credit for. With the stroke of a pen, Roberts made the president a liar (Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and the provisions of Obamacare -if a tax- will significantly raise the tax rates of almost all middle class Americans).
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:57:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:52:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction.

That is just not true. There is an entire field of political science which does more or less precisely that (studying judicial politics and judicialization trends).

We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

LOL That is just not true either (that "we all" -whoever "we" refers to in this case is tbd- thought SCOTUS would strike down obamacare). Very few well informed judicial scholars actually believed it was unconstitutional. Only the dimwitted pundits actually believed what you are saying -although most were surprised by Robert's reasoning.

We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Nope.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

Roberts would have started a war with the White House, which would have both undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch, while fundamentally thumbing his nose at the role of checks and balances. What Robert's did, though, was more clever than most give him credit for. With the stroke of a pen, Roberts made the president a liar (Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and the provisions of Obamacare -if a tax- will significantly raise the tax rates of almost all middle class Americans).

Stop trying to be a contrarian. The comment wasn't meant to be taken strictly - but just to note that the opinions forwarded by legal experts and observers on many potentially landmark cases have been out of all line with SCOTUS's final ruling. So whatever prediction seems likely here should be taken with a much much larger degree of caution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:00:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:57:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction.

That is just not true. There is an entire field of political science which does more or less precisely that (studying judicial politics and judicialization trends).

We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

LOL That is just not true either (that "we all" -whoever "we" refers to in this case is tbd- thought SCOTUS would strike down obamacare). Very few well informed judicial scholars actually believed it was unconstitutional. Only the dimwitted pundits actually believed what you are saying -although most were surprised by Robert's reasoning.

We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Nope.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

Roberts would have started a war with the White House, which would have both undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch, while fundamentally thumbing his nose at the role of checks and balances. What Robert's did, though, was more clever than most give him credit for. With the stroke of a pen, Roberts made the president a liar (Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and the provisions of Obamacare -if a tax- will significantly raise the tax rates of almost all middle class Americans).

Stop trying to be a contrarian.

Not trying to be a contrarian.

The comment wasn't meant to be taken strictly - but just to note that the opinions forwarded by legal experts and observers on many potentially landmark cases have been out of all line with SCOTUS's final ruling. So whatever prediction seems likely here should be taken with a much much larger degree of caution.

My bold prediction:

I think it will be a 6-3 ruling overturning prop. 8 and 5-4 striking down DOMA. I've been debating for the past thirty minutes if I want to take the time to explain how I came to that conclusion, but I really don't see the point. It is, after all, just a prediction.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:11:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:00:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:57:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction.

That is just not true. There is an entire field of political science which does more or less precisely that (studying judicial politics and judicialization trends).

We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

LOL That is just not true either (that "we all" -whoever "we" refers to in this case is tbd- thought SCOTUS would strike down obamacare). Very few well informed judicial scholars actually believed it was unconstitutional. Only the dimwitted pundits actually believed what you are saying -although most were surprised by Robert's reasoning.

We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Nope.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

Roberts would have started a war with the White House, which would have both undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch, while fundamentally thumbing his nose at the role of checks and balances. What Robert's did, though, was more clever than most give him credit for. With the stroke of a pen, Roberts made the president a liar (Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and the provisions of Obamacare -if a tax- will significantly raise the tax rates of almost all middle class Americans).

Stop trying to be a contrarian.

Not trying to be a contrarian.

The comment wasn't meant to be taken strictly - but just to note that the opinions forwarded by legal experts and observers on many potentially landmark cases have been out of all line with SCOTUS's final ruling. So whatever prediction seems likely here should be taken with a much much larger degree of caution.

My bold prediction:

I think it will be a 6-3 ruling overturning prop. 8 and 5-4 striking down DOMA. I've been debating for the past thirty minutes if I want to take the time to explain how I came to that conclusion, but I really don't see the point. It is, after all, just a prediction.

I would be interesting in seeing your reasoning
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:17:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think DOMA will be overturned and 8 will be ignored, effectively overturning it.

But, like ike said, it's a hard read.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Jo2599
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DOMA and Prop. 8 might be struck down because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, it is uncertain, given how the Supreme Court conducts its operations.
Zach5714
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 11:31:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:25:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

what important question, is gay marriage morally right? welcome to america, were people can use hate speech freely under the 1st amendment (WBC perfect example)
the question of "is it right or wrong" is still a religious question, should not be banned by the government, or made illegal just on those grounds...

Based on which religious grounds? How would one decide the which religion to base it on? Also, on what legal grounds would you do so?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 1:36:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:25:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.

what important question, is gay marriage morally right? welcome to america, were people can use hate speech freely under the 1st amendment (WBC perfect example)

the question of "is it right or wrong" is still a religious question, should not be banned by the government, or made illegal just on those grounds...

SCOTUS doesn't rule on right or wrong. They rule on the law. The important question is whether preventing gay marriage is inherently discriminatory in violation of the equal protection clause. That's a big question that they probably would prefer to avoid if possible. Though Roberts seems pretty legacy oriented.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 1:43:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:45:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

If SCOTUS was going to do that, why would they have even bothered to grant ceri, rather than just ignore because the issue wasn't ripe?

What do you mean? The states rights issue is a big deal. Not, perhaps, as much of one to you or I, but still a fairly important one.

Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.

I can't see repealing prop 8 without striking down DOMA... I suppose it's possible, but not -I think- likely.

Why? DOMA, as terrible as it is (there was a Savage Love episode recently which dealt with an immigration outside made awful by DOMA, on a side note), was enacted before gay marriage really existed, and wasn't done specifically to screw over folks a court had just recognized the rights of. Also it's federal, not state. DOMA send far more a states issue than an equal protection one. I mean, they COULD use one to build the other. And I'm not saying that would be bad...i just always bet on narrow rulings from them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 1:53:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction. We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

I really wasnt surprised by any of that. I'm surprised whenever they don't do the littlest they can without abdicating.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 6:04:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 1:43:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:45:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:20:26 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
DOMA will get repealed on States' Rights grounds or something similar, avoiding the important question as much as possible.

If SCOTUS was going to do that, why would they have even bothered to grant ceri, rather than just ignore because the issue wasn't ripe?

What do you mean? The states rights issue is a big deal. Not, perhaps, as much of one to you or I, but still a fairly important one.

The state's rights issue is a huge deal, you're right -but the issue of federalism must be weighed against the rights of individuals in California, which rather undercuts the notion of "states rights" altogether (when equal protection of a theoretically suspect class is at stake). I don't know whether SCOTUS will go so far as to declare sexual minorities a suspect class, but I can anticipate the permissibility of their moving in that direction. And all I can say is... it's about damn time. I hope Kagan writes the opinion, too.

(btw, I think Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will be the only ones opposing the repeal of DOMA).


Prop. 8 may get repealed, but only because it was done in such an obviously discriminatory manner (and utterly lacked a State Interest); that one I'm less sure on, and the broader implications will depend on how the opinion is written.

I can't see repealing prop 8 without striking down DOMA... I suppose it's possible, but not -I think- likely.

Why? DOMA, as terrible as it is (there was a Savage Love episode recently which dealt with an immigration outside made awful by DOMA, on a side note), was enacted before gay marriage really existed, and wasn't done specifically to screw over folks a court had just recognized the rights of. Also it's federal, not state. DOMA send far more a states issue than an equal protection one. I mean, they COULD use one to build the other. And I'm not saying that would be bad...i just always bet on narrow rulings from them.

To repeal DOMA would require recognizing the rights of sexual minorities -which, if they have rights or their protection from discrimination under the law even is to be examined on the level of heightened scrutiny as with gender- would logically require the repeal of prop. 8 on the same basis.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 6:05:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:11:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:00:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:57:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:55:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:54:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
SCOTUS is beyond prediction.

That is just not true. There is an entire field of political science which does more or less precisely that (studying judicial politics and judicialization trends).

We all thought they'd strike down Obamacare - Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

LOL That is just not true either (that "we all" -whoever "we" refers to in this case is tbd- thought SCOTUS would strike down obamacare). Very few well informed judicial scholars actually believed it was unconstitutional. Only the dimwitted pundits actually believed what you are saying -although most were surprised by Robert's reasoning.

We all thought their conservative supermajority (with Elena Kagan not participating) would completely obliterate the constitutional standing of Affirmative Action, they didn't - they simply almost unanimously sent it back the lower court and maintained the 2003 precedent. Who knows what the supremes will do, but it will surely be interesting to see.

Nope.

Very true. I remember even hearing rumors that Roberts wrote both the Majority and Dissenting opinion (which was intended to be the majority opinion before he changed his vote).

Roberts would have started a war with the White House, which would have both undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch, while fundamentally thumbing his nose at the role of checks and balances. What Robert's did, though, was more clever than most give him credit for. With the stroke of a pen, Roberts made the president a liar (Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and the provisions of Obamacare -if a tax- will significantly raise the tax rates of almost all middle class Americans).

Stop trying to be a contrarian.

Not trying to be a contrarian.

The comment wasn't meant to be taken strictly - but just to note that the opinions forwarded by legal experts and observers on many potentially landmark cases have been out of all line with SCOTUS's final ruling. So whatever prediction seems likely here should be taken with a much much larger degree of caution.

My bold prediction:

I think it will be a 6-3 ruling overturning prop. 8 and 5-4 striking down DOMA. I've been debating for the past thirty minutes if I want to take the time to explain how I came to that conclusion, but I really don't see the point. It is, after all, just a prediction.

I would be interesting in seeing your reasoning

I'll think some more about typing it up...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 6:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What will be especially interesting to me is how SCOTUS will handle the issue of standing. It was pretty amusing to hear that dealt with in oral arguments, but I think that if they wanted a way out, it is to declare that the appellants did not have standing to bring their case and that SCOTUS made a mistake in granting ceri...
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 6:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 6:23:33 AM, YYW wrote:
What will be especially interesting to me is how SCOTUS will handle the issue of standing. It was pretty amusing to hear that dealt with in oral arguments, but I think that if they wanted a way out, it is to declare that the appellants did not have standing to bring their case and that SCOTUS made a mistake in granting ceri...

Then again, they were supposed to dismiss the Texas case because it no longer had any legal standing; the harm had to persist for the duration of the court case but Fisher had already graduated from a University in Louisiana and could not be refunded her $100 application fee because it was non-refundable, whether or not she got in. I get the sense that if they want to have a landmark ruling they will have a landmark ruling regardless of those legal technicalities.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault